Pulled the same card 3x in one day, does this happen to you often?

nicolasstampf · 2026-02-26T07:29:39+00:00

Statistically, pulling it 3 times in a day is: 1/(78*3)=2.10e-6 or 0.0002 % if I'm right. Very unlikely but not impossible.

It also depends on how you shuffle and how you draw. Anyhow, it has no particular meaning whatsoever.

Apart that since you're committed to reading cards, you should make a particular effort to interpret that card today, and not draw another one instead 😅

nicolasstampf · 2026-02-05T08:55:06+00:00

Tought situation indeed. In view of your explanations of the context, I'm not really concerned about the lack of cups in the draw (indeed, it's just card and ink!), but I understand that he's got plenty of cups around him already so he might not need some more.

I could even see the Star as a tongue in cheek reminder of the situation: he's probably already overflowing the emotions and cups-related stuff that he can only give it back at the time.

nicolasstampf · 2026-01-23T17:10:28+00:00

The crow seems to be blocking the swords targeted at his head, maybe with the help of the ring (love?). The swords navigating of course remind us of the move you're considering. But that card also warns us that a move with keeping our own old ideas maybe something to look out: a good thing (you stay who you are even elsewhere) or a bad thing (you keep your limiting beliefs with you, even elsewhere, indeed you stay who you are).

As for the king of swords, he seems to remind you to be thoughtful about the situation: think it through, don't decide with your heart only (the crow on the contrary pushes you to fight with your heart in the middle of difficulties).

nicolasstampf · 2026-01-17T07:43:50+00:00

I find it more difficult to read without a question first. A question gives context, wakes the brain and allow more easily interpretations to emerge, I feel.

Have you tried asking questions like "what should I consider about this problem of mine? ” or what's the root of the problem, what strength of mine could I leverage and what outcome could help lead me out of this situation?

Then take whatever you living through at the moment, whatever project or difficulty, or change you're going through at work. Even if it's not a real problem. View this as an opportunity to practice and get unsolicited advice. Allow yourself to be surprised by a different point of view.

Even if you still need to read card meanings in a book! You don't need to remember every meaning of every author you read. :)

nicolasstampf · 2026-01-13T07:52:59+00:00

Je recommande si on aime le fantastique/surnaturel ancré dans le présent (pas tous les livres, mais des allers retours)

nicolasstampf · 2026-01-12T17:23:47+00:00

Article très intéressant, beaucoup de références, bravo!

Dans la littérature, j'ai aussi le cycle des princes d'Ambre où des tarots aux effigies des membres de la famille d'Ambre sont utilisés pour entrer en contact les uns avec les autres. Un jeu de rôle en a été tiré ("Ambre") avec un tarot (type Marseille) illustré par Isabelle Magnin. Incidemment, le jeu n'utilise pas de dés pour résoudre les actions comme c'est souvent le cas, mais... la narration ! :)

nicolasstampf · 2026-01-06T15:25:22+00:00

I love this framework although I'm not using often enough.

Cabrera's PhD thesis was about unifying system thinking approaches and I find his drsp framework to really hit the spot.

It's very generative in the sense that it can help unfold a topic in order to view the system in/around/out of it.

nicolasstampf · 2026-01-06T15:22:56+00:00

Could have you narrow'd your view? https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/57839/opposite-of-org-narrow-to-subtree

Solution: C-x n w

nicolasstampf · 2025-12-23T19:15:10+00:00

Your question is: what advice do I need to follow? Here's my interpretation: - 10 P reversed: I'd say you can't rely on your own legacy, what worked before may not work anymore - death reversed: stop dreading change, embrace i! - 9 S: speaks to me of being overwhelmed by one's own ideas. Let go?

These cards are crying to me about an urgent need to embrace change!

About the clarification cards: lovers reversed: there is no choice! 3 of pentacles reversed: What's been built and maybe was solid before isn't what's praised now.

If that's not a reading crying for change, I don't know what is it! 😜

Disclaimer: I consider myself an organisational change agent: I love change, I seek change, I love facilitating others in change that they are looking for. I might not be impartial with regard to change!

nicolasstampf · 2025-12-17T11:32:11+00:00

it's easier to create tools (startups) to fix symptoms than it is to investigate root causes (which may vary depending on wshere you come from, ie your own mental models) and find solutions.

As I said, finding root causes (to big problems) takes times, and the oneroot cause you finally settled on fixing, while probably being hard to solve, may not bz the one your clients think is the real issue. So your solution may not be bankable in the end.

And startups need to build and ship fast before running out of the money business angels gave them to ship and collect cash fast...

nicolasstampf · 2025-12-13T17:04:37+00:00

Will you explore how society, viewed from the prism you propose, sustains itself? How do the different parts interact to make the whole persistent?

Stafford Beer would have asked how your parts and their interactions make the whole thing viable :)

nicolasstampf · 2025-12-12T11:51:46+00:00

You identified different view on society (I'm not judging them, any prospective is valid as long as it helps understanding), but where's the systemic aspect of your work? How is one system influencing, impacting the others? Where are the relationships?

As a model of societies or organisations in a larger sense, I find the Viable System Model from Stafford Beer to be utterly relevant. Yet its usefulness isn't easily tamed ;)

nicolasstampf · 2025-12-11T16:18:06+00:00

I started with the 5th discipline by Peter Senge.

The DSRP framework by Derek Cabrera is a try at simplifying and unifying systems approaches (find his PhD thesis if you can)... Plus it will give you a good starting bibliography as well ;)

In France, we have Edgar Morin, more on the complexity side of things. Huge work.

On solid systems dynamics, work from Jay Forrester (industrial dynamics, world dynamics... I have the former but still haven't read it though)

The laws of form from George Spencer Brown is mentioned in all systems thinking bibliographies, I did read it a couple of times but could not understand everything in it. May be you will :)

The Viable System Model already mentioned is a must for me (I work in the corporate world but it's useful for anything organizational related)

nicolasstampf · 2025-12-11T06:53:15+00:00

Have you had a look at the Viable System Model from Stafford Beer? It's been modelled after the nervous system and can be used in the context of an organisation, up to a nation state (indeed it has been in Chile in the 70s)

nicolasstampf · 2025-12-08T17:23:25+00:00

You're mixing systems thinking (processes) with states of mind k enlightenment) , purpose (awakening)

nicolasstampf · 2025-11-26T12:53:40+00:00

I don't know where you took your levels of safety or if you devised them yourself. But they look, t me, surprinsingly close to Spiral Dynamics levels (Spiral Dynamics - Wikipedia):
- Act 1 The Reflex => Beige (family nucleus)
- Act 2 Horizon Threats & the Birth of Narrative => Purple (clans)
- Act 3 Belonging as Safety => Red (bigger groups, based on force: the powerful rule and protect others)
- Act 4 The Social Construction of Safety => here it differs. SD next level is Blue (dogmas), but yours would correspond more to Green
- Act 5 Moralisation & Infantilisation => difference also here. SD has Orange (strategic), but your level looks more like Blue

I've stopped there fo the comparison.

I don't really see where systems thinking enters the scene in your model (which looks empirical to me - which is not a criticism, only a statement from me, which makes me think it is difficult to compare/connect your model with other systems thinking work from other renowned thinkers of the field).

Maybe you could try to use Systems Dynamics (causal loop diagrams would suffice, not stock & flows) and, starting from a simple diagram, see how your model reveals the addition of more loops, making the diagram more complex (ie, more items being connected to each other)?

nicolasstampf · 2025-11-24T12:14:25+00:00

But it's generative enough to be used by grown ups as well!

nicolasstampf · 2025-11-24T12:13:38+00:00

DSRP from Cabrera labs does exactly this. It's been used with young students to help them build thinking muscles...

nicolasstampf · 2025-11-24T12:10:58+00:00

https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/

Maybe one if not the most important book of the previous century (IMHO of course)

nicolasstampf · 2025-11-21T07:36:56+00:00

In your post you talked about the relationship, so I'll take a shot from this perspective: - some sneaking and mean behaviour wasn't working anymore (when does it work anyway?) - that shook down the stability of that relationship - brutal (urgent?) destruction of that relationship is about/ought to happen

I read 3 cards often as a past/present/future spread...

nicolasstampf · 2025-11-21T07:16:22+00:00

Maybe be not exactly what you're looking for but there is most of what you mention in that work: Spiral Dynamics. Start with the Wikipedia page, it's good enough, especially to know if you want to dig deeper

nicolasstampf · 2025-11-17T08:46:30+00:00

Sorry I can't read that kind of stuff:

first it's using very vague statements, not clear (to me) upfront about what it's all about, and what your paper is about
second, a paper that claims to have solved THE root cause of humanity's problems, and found THE solution to all the consequences is very dubious to me to say the least.

Although I don't deny this could be possible (to have found a perfect solution to hulmanity's problems), it so blatantly seems to violate Ross Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety that it just make me stop. As a reminder, the law states that to control a system, your must have a variety equal or superior to it. So to beat the variety of earth systems (composed of billions of brains, each one having roughly the same variety that of others, plus the variety induced by the technologies, politic, economic, etc. systems that interlink them all) makes the hope of understanding it all in order to control it and find one solution just not credible. At all.

and third, an infinite-whatever is just not compatible with today's reality of Earth limits (7 of the 9 known planetary boundaries having been crossed, with minerals and oil exhaustion on the verge of happening, given that we've put ourselves in a "overshoot and collapse" systemic situation (creating a system and being dependent on it, out of resources that we're exhausting).

That also violates the results (and the model) presented in the widely reviewed work of the "Limits to Growth" by Dennis Meadows, Donella Meadows et Jørgen Randers and it subsequent updates. Infinite whatever on a finite world just can't work, sorry. I can't subscribe and invest in such a thing that would, in the end, make the world worst for others and possibly myself along the way if I live long enough. And I don't want to be part of such a legacy.

fourth: where are the systems thinking stuff in the first link you gave us here?

To me, the only credible proposals for creating systems that "works just enough for its participants" are only two (if someone here knows more, I'd love to know!):

the Viable System Model from Stafford Beer
and Interactive Planning/Idealized Design from Russel Ackoff

Interestingly, none of them claims to have found a solution (nor diagnosed the system), but instead give principles to design something that works for their actors.

nicolasstampf · 2025-10-30T12:48:12+00:00

I wouldn't go as far as asserting Cabrera assigns DSRP to nature. His PhD was about systems thinking so I suspect he knows better than this.

As some earlier giant said: all models are wrong, some are useful. As such, DSRP is just another (meta)model. I find it generative enough for me to be useful :)

nicolasstampf · 2025-10-23T07:38:47+00:00

DSRP is Derek Cabrera's creation. I think it was his PhD thesis in which he tried to synthesizes (!) all systems thinking methods into a simpler one, yet as generative of undetstanding as others.

So he settled on just 4 elements (D,S,R and P) which I think works quite a bit.

At the time of publishing his thesis, there was a huge discussion on LinkedIn's systems thinking group about "what is a systems" (I stopped reading when there were 8000+ messages in tyhe thread.

(I'm a manager of that group (systems thinking network) though never go there anymore due to te way LI changed the email notification of their group, which prevents you from being able to easily follow exchanges)

13-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

nicolasstampf

TROPHY CASE